Waste Side Story

Kevin Hua, Jenna Duncan, Susanne Gov, Cristina Arias

Contents
1. Objectives
2. Background
3. Dehydrator
4. Biodigester
5. In-Vessel Composter
6. Cost-Benefit Analysis
7. Comparisons
8. Recommendations
Objectives
Determine which food waste Client:
operation is preferable
Kara Carlson

Cost-benefit Analysis of Business & Sustainability

Dehydrator vs. Biodigester
Manager

Is it better than what we do

now?
Background: Composting in a Year

$61,568

445 tons of food waste

11,841 number of pickups

16.287 tons of pollutants emitted

Dehydrator: Gaia Recycle G-1200H
Cost: ~$200,000
Can handle containers and
silverware
Conserves water
Produces dry food pulp &
clean effluent
Does not require additional
water or biological enzymes
of original waste
Biodigester: Enviropure EPW-2000i Series
Cost: $40,000
Turns food waste into liquid effluent
Produces CO2 and water byproduct
Requires biomix
Disposed in municipal wastewater
systems
In-Vessel Composter: Big Hanna
Cost: $154,000
Produces compost
Use compost on campus
and donate to community
Compost paper products
All waste that goes in will
come out as compostable
matter (Closed system)
Obstacles
Volume of Food Waste

Size of Equipment & Space

Additional Costs

City Drainage Permits

Extra Staff Training

Compostable to-go Containers/Silverware

 Cost-Benefit Dehydrator
Sustainability Performance
Programs and Activities
Use dehydrators for
compostable materials
Operational Performance
Stakeholder Reactions
Students
Faculty
Cedar Grove
Fewer pickups from Cedar Local community
Grove
Reduce transportation costs
Reduced carbon emissions
Fair Pay
Engagement of community
Marketing communications
(students, faculty, organizations)
Monetary Benefits
Reduced Transportation: $54,000
Net Benefit in first year: $54,000
Net Benefit in 5 years:
$270,000
Monetary Costs
Reduce compostable waste mass G-1200H Dehydrator: $200,000
Permit: $17,000/year
Installation: ~$3,500
Electricity: $11,664
Labor (25 hours/ week): $19,500
Costs: $251,664 in the first year
 Cost-Benefit Biodigester Stakeholder Reactions
Students
Faculty
Sustainability Performance Cedar Grove
Fewer pickups from Cedar Government
Grove
Slight reduction carbon
emissions
Marketing communications
Programs and Activities (students, faculty,
Use biodigester for turning
food waste to water
organizations) Monetary Benefits
Reduced pollutant emissions Reduced Transportation: $54,000
effluent
Reduced compost Net Benefit: $54,000/ year

Monetary Costs
Operational Performance EPW-2000: $40,000/year
Permit: $17,000/year
Reduced transportation cost
Installation: $6400
No compostable waste matter
Electricity: $967.64
Biomix: $112/year
Labor: (25 hours/ week) $19,500
Costs: $83,979.64 in the first
year
Cost-Benefit In-Vessel Stakeholder Reactions

Composter
Students
Faculty
Sustainability Performance Cedar Grove
Local community
Closed system
Produces compost
Reduce transportation Costs
Reduce Carbon Emissions
Engagement of Community
Marketing communications Monetary Benefits
Programs and Activities Reduced Transportation $54,000
(students, faculty, organizations)
________________________________
Use In-Vessel Composter Net Benefit $54,000 / year

Operational Performance
Less pickups from Cedar Grove
Reduce compostable waste mass
by 90%
Monetary Costs
Big Hanna T480 $154,000
Permit: $17,000/year
License to compost: $800
Installation: TBD
Electricity: $3,032
Labor (25 hours per week): $19,500
Costs: $194,332 in the first year
Comparison
Technology Cost Benefits Drawbacks Net Benefit Time for ROI

Dehydrator $251,664 --Non-food waste -- Expensive -- Less trips to 5 years

Cedar Grove
-- Large input -- Batch system
$54,000/year
--Company
unavailable

Biodigester $83,579 -- Less Expensive -- No non-food -- Less trips to 3 years

waste Cedar Grove
-- Continuous
Feed -- Emits CO2 $54,000/year

-- Small input size

In-Vessel $194,332 -- Large input -- Expensive --Less trips to 4 years

Composter Cedar Grove
--Produces -- Batch system
compost -- Compost as
end product

$54,000/year
Recommendations In-Vessel Composter Big Hanna
Processed on-site
Reduced GHG Emissions
Minimal collection
required = savings
Mature compost end
product
Community
contribution
 Works Cited
Mirolyubov, Dimitry. Weight. Digital image. The Noun Project. Creative Commons, n.d. Web. <https://thenounproject.com/search/?q=weight&i=34299>.

Driskell, Nathan. Garbage Truck. Digital image. The Noun Project. Creative Commons, n.d. Web. <https://thenounproject.com/search/?q=garbage+truck&i=32606>.

Bolat, Ervin. Toilet Paper. Digital image. The Noun Project. Creative Commons, n.d. Web. <https://thenounproject.com/search/?q=toilet+paper+money&i=183132>.

Vega, Luc. Smoke. Digital image. The Noun Project. Creative Commons, n.d. Web. <https://thenounproject.com/search/?q=smoke&i=124215>.

Kovak, Stefan. Banana Peel. Digital image. The Noun Project. Creative Commons, n.d. Web. <https://thenounproject.com/search/?q=compost&i=163321>.

EPA. Average In-use Emissions from Heavy Duty Trucks (2008). Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 1-6. Oct. 2008. Web. 20 Feb. 2016.
< https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/420f08027.pdf>.
Background

Griffith-Onnen, Isaac, Zak Patten, and Jennifer Wong. "On-Site Food Systems for Food Waste." (2013): 1-55. MassDEP Food Waste Final Report. Northeastern University, 26 Apr.
2013. Web. 20 Jan. 2016. <http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/recycle/reduce/massdep-food-waste-final-report.pdf>.

Purchasing, State. CONTRACT (n.d.): n. pag. Procure Ohio State Gov. Ohio State. Web. <https://procure.ohio.gov/OrigContract/CSP900215_OC.pdf>.